WebsiteAccessibilityReport_Final_4

Websites that
Welcome Voters
Creating a Disability-Friendly Website
August 2016

Websites that Welcome Voters
Disability Rights Washington

Table of Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................ 3
Background ................................................................................................. 6
Disability Rights Washington....................................................................... 6
Purpose and Scope.......................................................................................... 6
Methodology..................................................................................................... 7
Findings .................................................................................................................12
Recommendations.............................................................................................27
References.............................................................................................................34
End Notes..............................................................................................................36

Introduction

Between May and July of 2016, Disability Rights Washington surveyed the
elections websites of all 39 counties in Washington to screen basic accessibility
of online voter information across the state. This was not an audit to determine
whether websites complied with the law. Rather, our intent was to identify
common mistakes that result in barriers to access, and make suggestions for
improvements. We conducted our survey with free, readily available, easy to
use tools – the same tools counties could use to improve the accessibility of
their websites. The issues we identify can all be readily corrected. This report is
a summary of what we found, and our recommendations for improvements.
Voting is the single most important tool US Citizens have to participate
politically and advocate their interests. Unfortunately, many people with
disabilities face barriers to voting. As a result, there is a disproportionately low
turnout of Americans with disabilities in elections.
In the 2014 midterm elections, 92.3 million people voted, or 38.5 percent of the
eligible, voting age population.1
Of those who voted 12.6 percent - or about
11.6 million - had a disability, even though statistics show that there are at least
36 million voting-age people with disabilities in the United States.2
Based on
these numbers and the total voting-age population in 2014, the turnout gap
between people without disabilities and people with disabilities was about
8.5%.3
The gap in 2014 is not an outlier. Percentage point gaps were found
consistently in 2008, 2010 and 2012, as well as in surveys in 1998, nearly 20
years ago, in which a 20-point percentage gap was observed.4

Election reform, vote-by-mail systems and absentee voting have been
proposed as means of combating low turnout and systematic
disenfranchisement of people with disabilities. These remedies are based on
the assumption that physical accessibility is the main barrier
people with disabilities face in voting. In a 2002 survey, 27.5
percent of people with disabilities experienced some sort of
difficulty when voting, most of which involved transportation
to the polls and difficulty with mobility when there.5
In 2002,
US Congress enacted the Help America Vote Act, which
provided federal funding and new accessibility requirements
for polling places.6
In the state of Washington, voters can cast
their ballots by mail independently, or if they need help, with
assistance from anyone other than their employers or union
representatives.7
But even with the barriers of transportation
and mobility addressed by a vote-by-mail system, challenges
with voting still remain for people with disabilities in
Washington, and a turnout gap remains.
It is essential to have access to voter information in order to
exercise the right to vote. Fortunately, we live in an age of
technology where people with and without disabilities have
access to more information than ever before. Websites allow
voters to learn about rules and regulations of their state and
county’s elections processes, and in the state of Washington, register to vote,
access the voter’s pamphlet and video voter guide, and locate the nearest
ballot drop box or elections office. Websites also provide contact information
for election officials in their respective county. All of this information facilitates
a more convenient and transparent voting experience for voters and especially
voters with disabilities.
“Voting is an
important way to be
able to voice one’s
opinion on how the
government should
run, as well as
influence the kind of
laws that are passed.
People with disabilities
have just as much a
voice as anybody else,
and therefore, are
entitled to have full
access to the voting
process.”
– Kittitas County Disability
Advocate

As websites are such an important resource for today’s voters, making them
accessible is a necessary part of making voting accessible. Websites that are
poorly designed, or designed without accessibility in mind, are rendered
useless. Web content accessibility guidelines and regulations have been
written to help website designers make their content more accessible. The
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) notes that their guidelines (WCAG 2.0) help
make website content accessible to people with a range of disabilities
including deafness and hearing loss, blindness and low vision, learning
disabilities, cognitive limitations, limited movement, speech disabilities,
photosensitivity and any combination of these. Following these guidelines
makes websites more accessible to users in general, including people who are
aging and people with temporary disabilities.8
If these guidelines are not taken
into account and incorporated into websites, even a particularly informative
elections website may not provide a voter with a disability the information they
need.

Background

Disability Rights Washington is a private non-profit organization that serves as
the designated protection and advocacy system for Washington State. Every
US state and territory has a designated protection and advocacy with a federal
mandate to protect the rights of people with disabilities.9
Disability Rights
Washington’s mission is to advance the dignity, equality, and self-
determination of people with disabilities. As a protection and advocacy system,
DRW utilizes multiple advocacy strategies that include education, investigation,
public policy and litigation. For more information about Disability Rights
Washington, please visit our website www.disabilityrightswa.org.
Purpose and Scope
The purpose of this report is to present the most significant trends identified in
the survey DRW conducted on the accessibility of all Washington county
elections websites. This report will demonstrate the impact of website
accessibility on the experience of voters with disabilities and identify common
website errors among the counties in Washington State. Neither this report,
nor the survey data collection on which it is based, is meant to serve as an
accessibility compliance check. None of the observations or recommendations
in this report should be interpreted as legal advice or as a legal compliance
review. Instead, the survey and the results presented in this report should be
seen as a brief screening of the website accessibility of the county elections
websites.10
We hope this report will motivate Washington state and county

officials to evaluate and improve the accessibility of their websites to ensure
that people with disabilities can fully and effectively participate in the voting
process.
This report does not include details on the surveys of each specific county, but
rather the report is an overview of the most important issues for the counties
collectively. However, as part of this process, DRW provided each county with
an individualized scorecard with written feedback on their specific website.
Methodology
Laws and Guidelines
DRW identified existing web accessibility standards upon which to base its
survey. Our sources included Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as
amended in 1998.11
Section 508 applies to all Federal agencies when they
develop, procure, maintain or use electronic and information technology. As
required in Section 508, the survey incorporated questions focused on tagging
non-text elements and providing skip navigation links and text only versions.12
Also on the federal level, the Help America Vote Act, passed in 2002, requires
that all polling places have an accessible voting system that provides voters
with disabilities “the same opportunity for access and participation (including
privacy and independence) as for other voters.”13
The Revised Code of Washington (RCW) mandates that every county “maintain
an advisory committee that includes persons with diverse disabilities.”14
The
committees are also mandated to “develop a plan to identify and implement
changes to improve the accessibility of elections for voters with disabilities.”
The plan must be updated at least annually.15

The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG 2.0) are a set of World Wide
Web Consortium (WC3) recommendations that the Web Accessibility Initiative
created for web content developers, web accessibility evaluation tool
developers, and others who want or need a standard for web accessibility.16
These technical standards provide recommendations for making web content
more accessible for people with a range of disabilities including blindness and
vision loss, deafness and hearing loss, learning disabilities, cognitive
limitations, limited movement, speech disabilities, photosensitivity and
combinations of these. Adherence to these guidelines can also make the web
content more accessible to users in general.17
This report focused specifically on WCAG 2.0 guidelines relating to content
ordering and headings (2.4.10), contrast errors (1.4.3 & 1.5.6) and untagged
non-text elements (1.1.1).18
Page headings are invisible to a sighted user but
part of the website’s design and allow a person using a screen reader to
understand the order of the page and access only the parts they need. Contrast
errors are places where text is difficult to distinguish because of the contrast
between the color of the text and the color of the background. Untagged non-
text elements are any pictures, graphics, tables, buttons or forms on the page
that do not have a coded text tag and are therefore invisible to a screen reader.
We set out to document the laws and regulations not so that we could provide
a compatibility analysis, but rather to be grounded in the language and
standards that currently define web accessibility.
Survey Instrument
With a basic understanding of web accessibility guidelines, we created a survey
using Google Forms that asked about the technical elements of the page as
well as the content. The survey included questions about tags, the ordering of
the pages, contrast errors, availability of alternate languages, the presence of a

skip navigation link and text-only version, and which specific information on
accessible voting was provided.
In order to answer the questions regarding the technical aspects of each
website, we used the WebAIM WAVE Google Chrome plug-in. This tool allows
users to check a webpage quickly for web accessibility by screening
for errors, alerts, features, structural elements, HTML5 and ARIA
elements, tagging issues and contrast errors.
WAVE Google Chrome plug in was used for every survey for
efficiency, as the items identified appear directly on the page and
one is still able to navigate through the website. The survey also
contained a section on screen-readers and keyboard navigation. To answer the
questions in this section, our surveyor used the NVDA free downloadable
screen reader and observed as the screen reader read through the websites.19
She also performed testing of keyboard navigation by navigating through the
websites using only the keyboard.
We checked our work by asking five people with disabilities to visit their
counties’ website, attempt to find the accessible voting information, and
provide comments about their experience and on the importance of voting.
We recognize that automated accessibility testing tools have limits in their
capabilities, which is why the survey utilized a combination of tools and human
testing. We intentionally ensured that the tools we used to complete this
accessibility screening were readily available, free tools that anyone who has
access to the internet can also use. The purpose of this was to demonstrate that
identifying web accessibility errors does not take vast amounts of money or
time, and that this screening and the subsequent recommendations are no
more advanced than what anyone with a computer and internet service could
accomplish.
Identifying web
accessibility errors
does not take vast
amounts of money
or time…

Timeframe
The survey was created solely for the purpose of this report and was
administered to all county websites between May 26 and July 5, 2016. After the
Google Form survey was completed, each survey was then copied onto a PDF
to create hard copy duplicates of the data. As part of the data collection, we
also took screen shots of the websites to time stamp them, including each
Elections homepage and Accessible Voting page with the WAVE feedback
icons. Once the data was collected, a scorecard was completed for each county
with individualized feedback.
Limitations
This tool and the subsequent report were created to be used as a preliminary
screening, and not an exhaustive diagnostic evaluation. We were able to
identify significant errors and make suggestions, but the purpose was not to
discern if each website complies with accessibility guidelines. If a county
receives a good report card from Disability Rights Washington, it does not
mean that the website does not have any accessibility errors. Furthermore, the
term compliance is somewhat of a misnomer in the context of website
accessibility. Web accessibility to its core is dynamic and ever evolving,
meaning that it can always be improved upon. We want to emphasize to the
counties that creating accessible web content—and making voter information
accessible online—is an ongoing process, not a one-time compliance check.
The survey was designed and completed by a sighted, hearing person who
does not have a mobility disability and does not identify as a person with a
disability. The survey process was not representative of the experience of a
person with a disability. The survey was created to identify general trends
across counties and to make recommendations. The purpose of the
recommendations is not to dictate the needs of voters with disabilities but

rather to point out common areas where websites could be made more
accessible.
We reported the exact numbers of contrast errors and
untagged non-text elements as identified by the WAVE
WCAG 2.0 compatibility screener. We did this to provide
consistency throughout the survey though we recognize
that automated tools miss errors and in some cases identify
errors that upon review are not. As is the recommendation
provided by WebAIM, we augmented all of our automated
tools with in-person testing, and reviewed all contrast and
tagging errors identified by WAVE.

“This website tells me
that [accessibility] is
not important to the
county. That’s what’s
communicated to me
by the way that the
website doesn’t work.”
– President of the Washington
Chapter of the National
Federation of the Blind,
speaking about her experience
using a county’s elections
website

Findings

The findings of this report generally indicate a need for more attention and
resources put forth for the accessibility of the county websites. Disability Rights
Washington identified five major areas of focus, as reflected in the sections of
the scorecards received by the counties.
1. Availability of Accessible Voting Information
The most fundamental action a county can take towards increasing the
accessibility of voting is providing adequate information on accessible voting.
The survey looked at whether or not the county elections website in question
had an accessible voting page directly linked from the elections homepage,
and whether that accessible voting page contained the following information:
• Information on the Accessible Voting Units (AVUs) in the county:
locations, hours, and dates of operation
• Information on accessible ballots
• Information on the Disability Advisory Committee in the county:
contact information, times and locations of meetings
• Drop box locations in the county
• Contact information for further help of someone in the county
We found that seven counties did not have an accessible voting page or page
with accessible voting information at all, and one third of the counties (13) did
not have an accessible voting (or similarly named) page directly linked to the
elections homepage (Figure 1). While some of these websites did have

accessible voting pages, their utility and accessibility were diminished by the
need to navigate through multiple pages. This practice, intentional or not, is
called “burying information” and can make the information inaccessible in
practice. A disability advocate from Western Washington commented on the
importance of the “Accessible Voting” page link being one of the first things on
an Elections website. She noted feeling that the accessible voting information
on the website in question was “hidden” and that rather than try to navigate
through many pages, she would most likely decide to call the
county, meaning that the website design made the information
very difficult to find.
Only about half of the websites (21, 54%) provided an accessibility
statement (Figure 2). An accessibility statement is important as it
contains language that alerts the voter that the county cares
about ensuring an equal right to vote. Only 15 counties (38%) had
complete information for the AVUs in the county. Five additional
counties provided some incomplete information on the AVUs. The
most common error encountered was the lack of information on
hours for the AVUs. Many counties provided a general statement - as is
provided by the Secretary of State’s Office - explaining that AVUs are available
18 days before Election Day and until 8pm on Election Day, but failed to
provide the address and hours of the county office where the AVU is accessible.
Washington State law requires an AVU in each county.20
Many voters with
disabilities need to make advance arrangements for transportation in order to
access the AVU, so it is very important to have this information on the location
and availability of the AVU on the website.
The majority of counties had some information on accessible ballots (59%),
county drop box locations (67%) and contact information in the county (79%),
though many counties did not have all of this information located on one
“I would like to
see a link on the
front page
directing to where
they can access
more information
on the AVU’s.”
– Disability Advocate
from Eastern
Washington

accessible voting page (Figure 2). As was explained in many of the individual
scorecards sent to the counties, even if the accessible voting information is
available elsewhere on the website, it is important that it all be compiled onto
one accessible voting page to eliminate the need for a person using a screen
reader or keyboard navigation to navigate through many pages just to find
voter information. The counties with the most complete accessible voting
pages as a whole were Kitsap and Mason. The President of the National
Federation of the Blind Washington State Chapter contributed user feedback,
noting:
“The questions you asked me [about accessible
voting information] are things I would be
looking for if I didn’t know how to vote. I would
look for a voters with disabilities or accessible
voting page. No matter where I live, I want to
know that there’s an easy way to find
information about voting as a disabled person.
I would like to see something like that on every
website.”
The most alarming observation regarding content was that only one county,
Thurston, had complete information on the county’s Disability Advisory
Committee (Figures 2 and 3). A further 10 counties had some information, but
it was not complete. Thurston County was especially impressive in that they
included the minutes and accessibility and outreach plans in multiple formats
including audio, PDF and Word documents.
Figure 4 shows what the Thurston County “Voting Accessibility Advisory
Committee” page looks like. The table shows the alternate formats of the
information.

In general, nearly all counties were missing some accessible voting information.
Counties can check their websites to ensure inclusions of: information on
locations, hours, and dates of operation of the AVUs; information on accessible
ballots; information on the Disability Advisory Committee (including contact
information, times and locations of meetings); drop box locations in the
county; and contact information of someone in their county for further help.

2. Ordering
More than two thirds of the websites (27, 69%) were not ordered using
appropriate heading levels (Figure 5). A heading level is a numbered heading
that indicates the structure of the page to a person using a screen reader.
When pages are ordered correctly, the page will be read logically, and the
person using the screen reader will be able to identify the main headings and
subheadings of the page (heading level 1=main point of page). Heading levels
also allow people to navigate directly to the section of information they are
looking for. One can direct the screen reader to read the heading levels of the
page using a keyboard command, and then navigate directly to the heading
that they choose.
When asked about her experience navigating through one of
the county elections websites, a Disability Advocate informed
Disability Rights Washington, “It’s not easy, and the reason for
that is it keeps getting stuck on [a heading]. So then I try
pressing tab which is one way that I can a lot of times scroll
through what’s on a website, but when I do that it just goes to
the bottom of the page.”
Common errors in ordering and heading levels across the
counties included a total lack of headings, missing heading levels, and skipped
heading levels. Skipped heading levels are problematic because it is unclear
whether a screen reader has skipped content on a page. Figure 6 shows an
example of what the WAVE screener shows when there are errors in ordering.
Though many of the accessible voting information pages were ordered
correctly, many of the same websites had incorrectly ordered elections
homepages. Figure 7 shows a correctly ordered page.
“It’s not easy, and the
reason for that is it
keeps getting stuck
[on a heading].”
– Disability Advocate
describing her experience
using a screen reader on an
elections website

Figure 6: On the left, this County Elections homepage is missing all
heading levels. In the center, this County Elections homepage is missing
heading levels 1-4. On the right, this County Elections homepage has a
skipped heading level at level 2.
Figure 7: Taken from the Lincoln
County Accessible Voting page,
picture showing correct ordering

3. Contrast Errors
The WCAG 2.0 guidelines provide conformance levels for color contrast. We
reviewed the AA level of contrast because it identifies the point at which a
person with moderately low vision can read the page without the use of
contrast-enhancing assistive technology.21
The contrast levels are also set to
ensure that people with color blindness or color deficiencies can access the
content. According to the WCAG 2.0 guidelines, “the contrast is calculated in
such a way that color is not a key factor so that people who have color vision
deficit will also have adequate contrast between the text and the
background.”22
According to the WCAG 2.0 guidelines, in order to pass
standard level AA, the contrast ratio between any text and its background must
be at least 4.5:1, except for large text, decoration or incedental text, and logos.
In order to pass level AAA, the visual presentation of text must have a contrast
ratio of at least 7:1, barring the same exceptions.23
The WAVE screener found contrast errors on nearly all of the
county websites. All of the contrast errors were reviewed and some
were false positives and found to pass level AA, but more than half
of the websites had at least one legitimate contrast error.
Figure 8 shows the number of contrast errors found, grouped into the sections
that appear on the county scorecards.
Figure 9 shows the number of contrast errors found on each county’s page,
with each county being represented by a dot. The number of counties for
“Accessible Voting Page” is 32 in both graphs, instead of 39, because 7 counties
had no Accessible Voting Page or similar page at all, so we were unable to
“Blues and grays are
hard to read.”
– Western Washington
Disability Advocate

check the contrast errors on that page for those counties. The most common
contrast errors found were gray text on a white background, which rarely ever
produces the contrast ratio needed, and similar colors being used for the text
and background, such as blue on green or red on orange.
Figure 10 shows a county elections homepage with the total number of
contrast errors identified on the left and some of them marked with icons on
the page. We have also used the contrast tool to check the errors on the left,
and where there is a contrast of 1.9:1 the gray text identified does not appear
to pass level AA and probably presents a contrast error. A disability advocate
from Western Washington reported that the Elections homepage in Figure 10
that the “blues and grays are hard to read,” and that she sometimes could not
distinguish between the two colors which, in this case, meant that she did not
know that some text represented a link and some did not.
Contrast errors are easy to test for and fix using the WAVE Contrast Tool.
Contrast errors also affect the largest number of people, because they can
make content difficult to read or inaccessible for people with low vision, people
with color deficiencies, the elderly and aging, and potentially people who wear
glasses or contact lenses with corrective perscriptions.

Figure 10: Screenshot of an elections homepage with the contrast
errors identified by the WAVE screener. There is gray text that only
has a contrast of 1.9:1 and does not pass level AA of the WCAG 2.0
guidelines.

4. Skip Navigation and Text-Only Versions
Skip navigation links and text-only versions are features that facilitate more
efficient navigation for people using screen readers, keyboard navigation, and
other assistive technologies. They are grouped together in the survey to
demonstrate that every website has some basic function to help simplify
navigation, but each element serves a different purpose and both could be
implemented to make a website the more accessible. 28 counties (72%) had
one or both of these elements, while 11 counties (28%) did not (Figure 11).
A skip navigation link is a link at the very top of the page that allows a person
using a screen reader to skip to the main content of the page, just as a sighted
person would. It eliminates the need to listen to all of the menu options before
arriving at the main text of the page, an exercise that is cumbersome and time
consuming. The most common errors observed in skip navigation links were
the lack of a link or the placement of the link somewhere other than the top of
the page. If the link is not the first thing read on the page, its usefulness is
diminished.
A text-only mode of a website presents the entire website in text, without any
pictures, graphics, icons, videos or other non-text elements. Non-text elements
that are not tagged correctly) can not only be confusing, but they can actually
impede the user from accessing the important content of the page because
screen readers and keyboards can get stuck on elements they are not able to
process. Even properly tagged non-text elements can simply add unnecessary
time to the navigation process. Therefore, a text-only mode is helpful to people
using screen readers and keyboard navigation. Disability Rights Washington
was pleased to discover in the survey that the Secretary of State’s website
template, used by many counties, always included a text-only mode. Figure 12

shows the text only mode of the Adams County Elections homepage compared
to the graphic mode.
It is usually possible to add a skip navigation link to a website without
undergoing a redesign, and we strongly recommend that counties do so.
Adding a text-only mode is more likely to require further redesign, but there
are free and openly available templates that provide text-only modes, and all
county elections websites should consider this addition.24

5. Tagging of Non-Text Elements
Tagging non-text elements is generally one of the most basic things website
developers can do to improve the accessibility of their websites. WCAG 2.0
1.1.1 guideline states that “All non-text content that is presented to the user
has a text alternative that serves the equivalent purpose”.25
Non-text elements that contribute to the content of the website can be
confusing to voters using a screen reader unless the elements are given an
alternative text tag. There are many such non-text elements. For example, on
the county websites, relevant non-text elements include phone and e-mail
icons that indicate that the following information is a phone number or e-mail
address, pictures of elections offices that show where the office is or indicate
that the following information is an address, search boxes, PDF icons indicating
that the link will take the user to a PDF, graphic expand icons that indicate that
Figure 12: Screenshots of the Adams County Elections homepage, shown
in graphic mode in the left and text mode on the right.

a menu has subheadings, and county banners that inform the user of the host
of the website.
Once the WAVE screener identified the untagged non-text elements, we
reviewed them to determine relevance before making a reccomendation to
each county for additional tags. The survey also required the use of a screen
reader to determine how much non-text content was actually read by the
screen reader.
Figure 13 shows that of the counties that had pictures, tables, or graphs on the
two pages reviewed (n=32), less than half (47%, 15 counties), had appropriately
tagged all of their non-text relevant content so that the screen reader could
access it.
Figure 14 shows the number of untagged non-text elements as identified on
each county’s Elections homepage and Accessible Voting page by the WAVE
screener. As was the case with the contrast errors, there were only 32
Accessible Voting pages to test. The data shows not only that over two-thirds
of the Elections homepages and Accesible Voting pages, respectively, had
more than two untagged non-text elements, but that there were more
counties who had more than 10 untagged non-text elements on each page
than counties that had less than two. In other words, 11 counties had more
than 10 untagged non-text elements on their Accessible Voting pages, while
only 10 counties had less than two. Seventeen counties had more than 10
untagged non-text elements on their Elections homepages, while only 12
counties had less than two.
Figure 15 shows the number of untagged non-text elements, with each county
represented by a dot.

The most common errors in tagging were a lack of a tag, or a tag with either
generic text (such as “Describe your picture”), or tags left blank. Figure 16
shows the Skamania County Logo, which is tagged correctly. Tagging is easy to
fix and does not require any redesign. Many counties had some elements
tagged and others not—most likely, tagging was forgotten as new content was
added. Counties can significantly improve the accessibility of their websites by
reviewing the non-text elements on their elections websites including pictures,
forms (search boxes and other fill-ins), graphics, icons and banners to check for
relevent untagged non-text elements, and making the appropriate corrections.

Figure 16: Screenshot showing the Skamania County Logo with a
correct alternative text tag.

Recommendations

Short Term Recommendations
Scorecard Review
We hope that each county will review their individualized scorecard and
address the issues identified while performing an accessibility review of the
website. It is important to note that we only screened two pages of each
website—the Elections homepage and the Accessible Voting page—and any
errors with contrast, ordering and tagging that were on other pages were not
reported. We also encourage counties to promptly update the accessible
voting information on their elections websites and link their Accessible Voting
pages to the Elections homepage.
Address Additional Technical Features
There are some other technical features that were not addressed in our
scorecard but have been brought to our attention as places of common error.
As counties review their websites, the following elements are important to
review.
• On the list of drop boxes provided on their websites, we encourage
counties who have drop boxes that are not accessible to indicate which
drop boxes are accessible and meet ADA regulations, and which are not
accessible.
• We recommend marking all PDFs on the page with a tagged PDF icon,
so that users are alerted that the link is a PDF. It is especially important

that PDFs be marked as they often open a new window and sometimes
are not accessible when using a screen reader, and thus can be very
confusing and inaccessible.
• Search boxes are more readily identified if tagged appropriately with
the correct ARIA landmark tag. As a further step, spell suggest functions
can make search boxes more accessible by suggesting options for
people who have difficulty with spelling or people whose first language
is not English.
• CAPTCHA feature, if used, is often not accessible. This article may be
helpful to counties who use this feature:
https://www.w3.org/TR/turingtest/.
Website Accessibility Plan
We also suggest that counties develop a plan for the improvement and
maintenance of accessibility of their websites. This plan should include a
designated person or group of people responsible for the accessibility of the
website, a corrective action plan to prioritize the removal of current online
barriers, and policies and procedures ensuring that all new, newly added or
modified online content and functionality will be accessible to people with
disabilities.26
Long Term Recommendations:
Website Audit
We recommend that counties conduct a thorough audit of existing online
content and functionality performed by an auditor who has the requisite
knowledge and experience to audit content and functionality. The audit should
identify barriers to access on the existing website for people with disabilities.27

Redesign with Accessibility in Mind:
Counties planning to undergo a website redesign are well advised to do so
with accessibility in mind. This includes ensuring that a text-only mode is
available. Website redesign often includes planning for responsive design.
Having responsive design means that the website will accommodate different
website templates, different technologies (including computers, smart phones
and tablets), and that content and functions available using one of the
technologies are also available on the other types. As a starting point, counties
can check for mobile accessibility, a part of responsive design, by using the
Google mobile accessibility check tool.28
Personas and User Testing:
We encourage counties to learn more about ongoing ways to test their
websites for accessibility. 29
County Disability Advisory Committees can be a
helpful resource for user testing.
Staff Training
We also encourage counties to incorporate in their long-term plan a means of
providing website accessibility training to all appropriate personnel. There are
free webinars on website accessibility available via 3PlayMedia.30
Resources
We recognize that counties will have different resources and expertise
available to them to address issues with the accessibility of their websites. The
following are some additional resources for counties who need help
implementing upgrades in website accessibility:

• WebAIM provides a “Resources” page that has articles, videos,
tools and simulations all available at no cost. The page can be
found here: http://webaim.org/resources/
• WebAIM WAVE Google Chrome plug-in web accessibility testing
tool is available free online: http://wave.webaim.org/extension.
A free tool for agencies who do not support or use Google
Chrome is available http://wave.webaim.org/.
• W3C offers resources available online for planning and
implementing web accessibility including articles on how to
develop policy around web accessibility and how to plan,
manage, and improve the accessibility of your website. More
information can be found here:
https://www.w3.org/WAI/managing.html
• Counties that are planning a website redesign or a website
accessibility audit who need assistance identifying outside
parties to do this work can contact the Secretary of State’s Office
for referrals and further resources.

Authors
Madeline Brown
Systems Advocacy Intern
David Lord, J.D.,
Director of Public Policy
Betty Schwieterman,
Director of Systems Advocacy

References
“Contrast (Minimum): Understanding SC 1.4.3.” Understanding WCAG 2.0.
W3C, 2016. Web. Available online: https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-
WCAG20/visual-audio-contrast-contrast.html. (Last visited July 14, 2016).
“How WAI Develops Accessibility Guidelines through the W3C Process:
Milestones and Opportunities to Contribute.” Web Accessibility Initiative. Ed.
Shawn Lawton Henry. W3C, December 2008. Web. Available online:
https://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/w3c-process.php. (Last visited July 13, 2016).
Knight, Kayla. "Responsive Web Design: What It Is and How To Use It –
Smashing Magazine." Smashing Magazine. N.p., 12 Jan. 2011. Available online:
https://www.smashingmagazine.com/2011/01/guidelines-for-responsive-web-
design/. (Last visited July 26, 2016).
Kruse, Douglas. 1998. "Persons with Disabilities: Demographic, Income, and
Health Care Characteristics." Monthly Labor Review 121 (9): 8-15.
LaPlante, Mitchell P, Jaye Kennedy, H. Stephen Kaye, and Barbara L. Wenger.
1996. Disability and Employment, Disability Statistics Abstract No. 11.
Washington, DC: National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research.
McDonald, Michael P. "2014 November General Election Turnout Rates." United
States Election Project. University of Florida, 30 Dec. 2015. Available online:
http://www.electproject.org/2014g. (Last visited July 13, 2016).
Schur, L., Shields, T., Kruse, D., & Schriner, K. (2002). Enabling Democracy:
Disability and Voter Turnout. Political Research Quarterly, 55(1), 167-190.
Available online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3088070. (Last visited July 13,
2016).
Schur, L., Shields, T., & Schriner, K. (2003). Can I Make a Difference? Efficacy,
Employment, and Disability. Political Psychology, 24(1), 119-149. Retrieved
from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3792513. (Last visited July 13, 2016).
"Section 508 Checklist." WebAIM. Web. Available Online:
http://webaim.org/standards/508/checklist. (Last visited: July 7, 2016).

“Section 508 Law and Related Laws and Policies.” Section508.gov. Web.
Available online: http://www.section508.gov/content/learn/laws-and-policies.
(Last visited July 6, 2016).
US Census Bureau; Voting and Registration in the Election of November 2014;
Table 1: Reported Voting and Registration, by Sex and Single Years of Age:
November 2014. Available:
https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/socdemo/voting/publications/p20/2014/T
able01.xls. (Last visited July 13, 2016).
Table 6: Reported Voting and Registration, by Sex, Employment Status, Class of
Worker, and Disability Status: November 2014. Available:
able06.xls (Last visited July 13, 2016)
Verba, Sidney, Kay Lehman Schlozman, and Henry E. Brady. 1995. Voice and
Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
"Voters with Disabilities." Elections and Voting. Washington Office of the
Secretary of State, n.d. Web. Available online:
https://wei.sos.wa.gov/agency/osos/en/voters/Pages/voters_with_disabilities.a
spx. (Last visited July 13, 2016).
"Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0." Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0. Ed. Caldwell, Ben, Michael Cooper, Loretta Guarino Reid,
and Gregg Vanderheiden. W3C, 2008. Web. Available online:
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/. (Last visited July 13, 2016).
"Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) Overview." Web Accessibility
Initiative. Ed. Shawn Lawton Henry. W3C, 2 Oct. 2012. Web. Available online:
https://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/wcag.php. (Last visited July 13, 2016).

End Notes

1
Table 1. Reported Voting and Registration, by Sex and Single Years of Age:
November 2014. Available:
able01.xls. (Last visited July 13, 2016).
2
Based on data in Andrew Houtenville and Tony Ruiz, 2014 ANNUAL
DISABILITY STATISTICS COMPENDIUM, available
http://disabilitycompendium.org/statistics/population-and-prevalence. (Last
visited July 13, 2016) US Census Bureau; Voting and Registration in the Election
of November 2014; Table 1: Reported Voting and Registration, by Sex and
Single Years of Age: November 2014. Available:
able01.xls and Table 6: Reported Voting and Registration, by Sex, Employment
Status, Class of Worker, and Disability Status: November 2014. Available:
able06.xls (Last visited July 13, 2016).
3
McDonald, Michael P. "2014 November General Election Turnout Rates."
United States Election Project. University of Florida, 30 Dec. 2015. Available
online: http://www.electproject.org/2014g. (Last visited July 13, 2016).
4
Schur, L., Shields, T., Kruse, D., & Schriner, K. (2002). Enabling Democracy:
Disability and Voter Turnout. Political Research Quarterly, 55(1), 167-190.
Available online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3088070. (Last visited July 13,
2016). Referred to herein out as Schur et al 2002.
5
Schur et al 2002.
6
42 U.S.C. § 15301; 42 U.S.C. § 15481.
7
See Voters with Disabilities, Washington Office of the Secretary of State,
available:
https://wei.sos.wa.gov/agency/osos/en/voters/Pages/voters_with_disabilities.a
spx. (Last visited July 13, 2016).

8
Available online: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/. Copyright © 2015 W3C®
(MIT, ERCIM, Keio, Beihang). This software or document includes material
copied from or derived from Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0.
9
DRW's authority comes from the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and
Bill of Rights (DD) Act, 42 U.S.C. § 15041, et seq., the Protection and Advocacy
for Individuals with Mental Illness (PAIMI) Act, 42 U.S.C. § 10801, et seq., the
Protection and Advocacy for Individual Rights (PAIR) Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794e, the
regulations promulgated thereto, and RCW 71A.10.080.
10
The survey does incorporate standards as set forth by expectations of federal
and state statutes, and broadly accepted web content guidelines (Federal laws:
Section 508, Washington State law RCW: 29.04.223 Guidelines: WCAG and WC3
Guidelines), but inclusion or exclusion of a standard or indication of issues is
not determinative of legal compliance.
11
29 U.S.C. § 794 (d); “Section 508 Law and Related Laws and Policies.”
Section508.gov. Web. Available online:
http://www.section508.gov/content/learn/laws-and-policies. (Last visited July
6, 2016).
12
Section 508 (a), (b), (k), (l), and (o); "Section 508 Checklist." WebAIM. Web.
Available Online: http://webaim.org/standards/508/checklist. (Last visited: July
7, 2016).
13
42 USC 15 § 301(a)(3)(A)(B)(C).
14
“Vote by mail impacts on voters with disabilities—Mitigation—Advisory
committee, plan.” RCW29A.04.223
15
RCW29A.04.223
16
Resources for how WAI develops Accessibility Guidelines through the W3C
Process:
“Milestones and Opportunities to Contribute” and “Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines (WCAG) Overview” https://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/w3c-
process.php. (Last visited July 13, 2016)
17
(Previously cited- WCAG Guidelines) Available online:
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/. Copyright © 2015 W3C® (MIT, ERCIM, Keio,
Beihang). This software or document includes material copied from or derived
from Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0.

18
19
A "screen reader" is a software application that converts text into synthesized
speech, which allows a user to listen to the content. This enables people who
cannot read printed words to access the content. Many people with disabilities
such as blindness or learning disabilities rely on screen readers in order to
access the web. http://webaim.org/techniques/screenreader/
20
RCW 29A.40.160 (1), (4).
21
“Contrast (Minimum): Understanding SC 1.4.3.” Understanding WCAG 2.0.
W3C, 2016. Web. Available online: https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-
WCAG20/visual-audio-contrast-contrast.html. (Last visited July 14, 2016).
22
Id.
23
24
One resource for free website templates is drupal.org. We would like to thank
Brian Rowe for providing us with technical assistance and information on the
resources available to implement these elements.
25
26
Some of our recommendations were adapted from the recent settlement
between the US Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights and
education departments in seven states and one territory, including the
Bellingham Washington School District and the Washington Office of the
Superintendent of Public Instruction. More information on the settlement can
be found online: http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/settlements-reached-
seven-states-one-territory-ensure-website-accessibility-people-
disabilities?utm_content=&utm_medium=email&utm_name=&utm_source=g
ovdelivery&utm_term= (Last Visited July 14, 2016).
27
Id.

28
For more information on responsive design, please see the following article:
https://www.smashingmagazine.com/2011/01/guidelines-for-responsive-web-
design/. (Last visited July 14, 2016). Link to the Google mobile accessibility tool:
https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/mobile-friendly/. (Last visited July
14, 2016).
29
For information on user testing, please see the following article:
http://webaim.org/blog/accessibility-user-testing/ (Last visited July 31,2016)
For information on accessibility testing with personas with disabilities, please
see the following article:
https://www.w3.org/wiki/Accessibility_testing#Personas_with_disabilities (Last
visited July 31, 2016).
30
Link for 3PlayMedia web accessibility webinars:
http://www.3playmedia.com/resources/webinars/. (Last visited July 14, 2016).

The following federal funding partners shared in the cost of producing this
material: The Administration on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities AIDD
(1603WAVOTP) and (1601WAPADD); and the Rehabilitation Services
Administration RSA (H240A140048).
These contents are the sole responsibility of Disability Rights Washington and do
not necessarily represent the official views of AIDD or RSA.

WebsiteAccessibilityReport_Final_4

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (7)

Similar to WebsiteAccessibilityReport_Final_4

Similar to WebsiteAccessibilityReport_Final_4 (20)

WebsiteAccessibilityReport_Final_4